This is just an awkward sounding construction - the better way to unfuck is to say it a different way. Take the example
The procedure is less rigorous that that required by the SOP.
The procedure is less rigorous than the procedure in the SOP
The procedure does not meet the standard set by the SOP.
The standards of the procedure are less stringent than those set by the SOP.
(it would help me give better examples if the OP would share the whole sentence in question)
It doesn’t mean the same thing. Your sentence implies that any particular time is either good or bad. But my sentence, “We take the good of times with the bad.” implies that all times have good and bad things that can happen in them, and whatever time you are in, you have to take the good with the bad.
In an OP about nitpicking grammar and sentence structure, this is especially hilarious.
Already did, about 4 posts before yours.
Yes, I know it’s rather ironic, but I included that note to emphasize that I’m looking for WHY it feels odd, rather than whatever the “proper” usage may be.
Oh well, I guess I should then.
Well, OK, but in those sorts of cases the adjective is modifying the preceding subject of the sentence, not the word following the “of”. I should have said that “adjective of noun-being-modified-by-that- adjective” is not an acceptable English construction.
I don’t know why that of is being used by posters above in as strict of a procedure. It’s completely unidiomatic with the indefinite article and I think they’re confusing it with constructions such as the strictest of procedures.
Probably they’re not. “As strict of a” is a completely grammatical phrase that is in regular if not common use by your average joe english speaker. You may not personally care for it, but “as strict of a” is not de facto wrong.
Great idea for a thread though.
Hey grammar experts, what’s the right construction?
I has hanged picture’s
I has hung picture’s
Whichever construction is most common or appreciated by your intended audience.
Here’s how it can work. Consider this conversation:
“He needs to discuss it with you in the strictest of confidence.”
“OK, I’ll talk to him about it in as strict of confidence as I can.”
“Strictest” and “as strict” are different expressions, which set the boundaries in different places.
I’d leave out the “of” in the second sentence.
I’d leave out everything except “okay” in the second sentence.
Is there supposed to be of a verb in here?
The issue is not grammar, but rather a mondegren.
The phrase is “Not as strict a procedure,” Not “*Not as strict of procedure.”
It’s possible that the original speaker hear it wrong, too. The unstressed “a” is occasionally mistaken for “of.”
I can’t explain the construction, but it sounds idiomatic to my ears in my dialect. “He’s not as good of a ball player as Sandberg. She’s not as strict of a teacher as Mrs. Smith. Etc.” While the “of” is not necessary, it’s a perfectly common colloquial construction around here. Nothing about it sounds off to my ears.
Since “SOP” means “Standard Operating Procedure,” you could just say, “This procedure is below the standard,” or, if you are actually standing in front of an example to act as an antecedent, “This does not meet the SOP.”
There isn’t enough information in the sentence, and it still contains a redundancy, in my opinion. No matter how much you move the words around to get something like “This procedure is not as strict as the SOP requires,” it still bothers me.
You have two procedures: one is the SOP, and one is the non-strict one. If you have an SOP already, why are you even bothering to create a second procedure?
I require more backstory.
Well, yeah, of course, but the purpose of this thread is not to rewrite the original sentence. It’s whether the original sentence is acceptable as it is.
Right, it’s pretty common in speech. Editors and proofreaders will usually change something like this in print, to be on the safe side. You can hear it occasionally in the news, for instance, such as this example from NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press, (06/19/2011), talking about the presidential primaries:
[QUOTE=Chuck Todd]
Michele Bachmann doesn’t seem as if she can get the nomination. You can see how she can get very, very strong, and in the end, the Mitt Romney folks love the idea of it being Michele Bachmann. But this idea of the player to be named later, specifically Rick Perry, I think when you look at how this week played out, as good of a week as Mitt Romney had as being a front-runner, you’re seeing it in our own poll, you’re seeing it in other polls, Rick Perry had a pretty good week, too, because of two things.
[/quote]
The issue with the example from the OP is that it conflates a comparison of the substantive (procedure/s) with the modifier (strict); the writer is really not comparing the noun, so there’s no reason to render it plural. In any case, two different things are happening, which makes it seem strange.
The risk manager was stout of heart and round of belly, but short of imagination and strict of procedure. :dubious: